You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The only problem with this is that "classical" warfare is pretty much dead. Asymmetric warfare is the fighting style of the future, and of the present. Do you see massive armies duking it out on the battlefield today? No. And that's because massive armies are unwieldy, and a pain to support economically. Guerrilla fighters are easier to support, and can last forever, eventually winning their war because the "classical" army's public will eventually grow tired of constant war, even though they could easily win.

That's what you're missing in your assessment. Public opinion. In a modern democracy (which is to say, pretty much every major power on earth minus China), public opinion reigns supreme. Which explains the Vietnam effect: the US had better training, better weapons, better tactics, and inflicted something like a 10-to-1 casualty ratio on the VC forces, but they ultimately lost the war because their public grew tired of it. War weariness is not to be underestimated, and it is foolish to think that the public will infinitely support more and more of their sons and daughters being drafted into the ranks of a "classical" army.

The difference between the two is that guerrilla tactics rely wholly on the implicit support of the public. It can prove impossible to successfully occupy a nation if the citizens are always non-cooperative and fighting back, supporting the defense/resistance movement. Guerrilla tactics are employed because a small, harrying force (like the commandos you mentioned above) can easily disrupt the massive supply lines and support networks needed for the "classical" army's power, and inflict enough casualties to make their public war-weary. You cannot understand asymmetric warfare if you look at in from a symmetric viewpoint, which is what you seem to be doing. In a stand up fight-- that is to say if the classical army managed to corner the guerrillas-- of course the classical army would win! But, here's the catch. Do you remember the American revolution? Yes? Who had the classical army there, with 25% more power? That's correct, the British did. But, because the United States used guerrilla tactics, not to mention receiving help from a sympathetic power and refusing to come into a stand-up battle with massive British forces, the Americans eventually won. By all odds, this victory should have been impossible, but it was not.

So, while I understand why you'd think that the classical army would always win, on home terrain (something you didn't specify in your question, whether we were attacking or defending) the guerrillas have the advantage. If you'd like, I can cite some official sources (from the Pentagon's official warfighting strategy, no less!) that confirm this.

I had a feeling that I would get the this kind of a replies.
The thing is that this thread and its logic was designed to be completely theoretical and basically a half-joke .
Especially since different historical epoch have pretty different strategic logic. While all real conflicts have their own context so making generalizations should not be made. That is why I have said a number of times that all of this is completely theoretical and the thread is in Bonfire sub-forum.

The reason why I did not described terrorist enemy is because that is usually unknown factor for the most part. What seems to be the reason why this choice is ...... unpopular. I have used my quickly created math model since stronger army should have better artillery, air force and special forces, what makes it easier for them to soften the defense/enemy. What could maybe lead to losses from the model.

On the other hand it seem that you did not notice my main point. Which is not about winning.

The elusive enemy is not that much likely to destroy your whole army. Especially since you can just move them to more friendlier environment.
While if you go 100 vs 125 of stronger troops the odds are that you will lose most of these 100. Or at least around the half in the best possible scenario.

What is interesting to me is that people by so large percentage would rather prefer this than a elusive threat that could turn out to be a minor problem. While this 100 vs 125 thing has the large potential to create huge infrastructural damage and plenty of loses on all sides (in a blink). So however it turns out the chances of a pure clean victory here are much less likely than with elusive enemy.

Do you now have a better picture of what actually drew my attention here?

However we can make a serious thread about this conventional/unconventional warfare and discuss the stuff on a factual level and with actual data and facts instead of simplistic fictional models. If there is enough interested people I am willing to make the thread.

1. Do you think that you would make a good military commander ? I mean what parts of your personality make you think that this is the case ?

If you're talking about the steel fist in velvet glove variety, then yes. Kind of cool and detached in general, more of a quiet leader. Would have competent advisors at my side though, since I lack experience in actual warfare. Would be more of a book-smart variety, to be honest. But there's a bit of me that really craves this type of leadership.

2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?
Everything planned out in advance, and if something happens spontaneously, then give direct orders, precise locations where I want people to be, what they should do. Think of something modeling Leroy Jethro Gibbs and how he gives orders.

3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ? Making sure that supply lines function at optimal levels. Or marking the exact spots where you should air-drop the fuel and additional ammunition .... etc.

Mark exact spots.... make sure supplies do not run short. Keep everything documented to help things run efficiently. Would be stressful if we were losing men or if the base were being attacked.

4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.

General population that is capable and willing to create an organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy- need to create an alliance... more people on your side.

Superior intelligence/counterintelligence agency.

Surprised there isn't an option for development of stealth weapons... sneak up behind the enemy when they least expect it.

5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.

Unfortunately it's a fact of life with war. Not exactly happy with losing civilians and young men with families back home waiting for them, but I guess I'd become more callous and stoic in order to manage this.

6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.
So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a supprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)

Launch a surprise air strike against critical infrastructure.... stay clear of civilian areas and stick with just objects of strong military and strategic value.

7. Another situation. There is plenty of enemy civilians that ended trapped in a front line between your forces and the enemy. You have two options

One: wait for a few days so that everybody moves away. Even if that will give the enemy the time needed to entrench. What means you will probably not be able to brake through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)

Which option makes more sense to you ?

Shit, can't brainwash the civilians to fight on your side? Well, okay, since that option isn't available, will chose choice 1. I'd still love to turn the civilians into rebels and have an uprising. ;D

8. Would you change your opinion in the above scenario in the case that you are the one who got brutally invaded first and by some miracle you managed to brake the first wave of the invansion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)

Someone invades my territory, beware... will definitely attack.

9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.

A bit, but I am just doing my job as a commander. Would it be better to just sit on my hands and wait for everyone else to attack? I don't think so. Get them before they get you!

10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.
So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?

Get rid of the command center. It's a key target.

11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?

Yep.

12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?

Classical army... can spot them. Guerillas/terrorists are very elusive, difficult to spot them readily... some may escape.

13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?

Determination, plenty of supplies, good aiming, and lots of numbers.

14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?
Depends on the type of conflict. If the the country's overall well-being was in danger, defend it. If there's no clear and present danger, then the overall loss of lives isn't worth it.

15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)
About 9 years old.

16. How do you feel about these questions ?
Quite self-revealing. Clearly I lack experience in warfare, but I'm determined to win.

1. Do you think that you would make a good military commander ? I mean what parts of your personality make you think that this is the case ?

Hahahahahahaah. No. All parts.

2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?

Wut iz detailz?

I would have some bizarre plan of action that I would hand over to my NTJ generals who would look at me and think "Yeahhhh I'm gonna go with MY idea."

3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ? Making sure that supply lines function at optimal levels. Or marking the exact spots where you should air-drop the fuel and additional ammunition .... etc.

Scale of 1-10 of Stress:
1- Picking up friend from airport.
10- Picking up bomb from ground.

My answer is Level 11: Midnight.

4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.

Having an arsonal of sharks.
Having my own Panzer tank.
Psychic abilities to read the minds of my enemies.
Night vision goggles that link into my brain.

5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.

I would want to cry but instead I would go numb.

6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.
So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a supprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)

Making everyone get a pony and hug it out. (Sorry, I didn't read the entire scenario.)

7. Another situation. There is plenty of enemy civilians that ended trapped in a front line between your forces and the enemy. You have two options

One: wait for a few days so that everybody moves away. Even if that will give the enemy the time needed to entrench. What means you will probably not be able to brake through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)

Which option makes more sense to you ?

Three: Everyone needs to stop and eat some pudding.

8. Would you change your opinion in the above scenario in the case that you are the one who got brutally invaded first and by some miracle you managed to brake the first wave of the invansion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)

No, pudding is delicious.

9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.

War crimes involving pudding don't exist.

10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.
So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?

Level the church and stand next to the holiest person in my army so God is afraid to strike us with lightening.

11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?

No. But a memorial for the lives that were snuffed out may need to be built nearby. Why build on the graves of those who have gone before us.

12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?

I'd rather fight ants in an uphill battle to make them stop building ant hills.

13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?

A good sense of humor, pudding, and psychic powers.

14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?

I don't recognize human authority as authority.

15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)